Very nice bokeh helps define the bird from the background - maybe the area behind the bird's breast can be darkened a bit to add separation?
<EDIT> That's a GBH, isn't it? Same one as from an earlier post?
The exif says a 400mm lens! Great job steadying it - tripod? hh?
The posts seem to have a plastic-like texture common from too much NR, or perhaps that is the natural weathering?
I like it as is but am curious what could be done by nudging the temp to cool it just a bit? And finally, just noticed and to pick one nit, clone out the foliage in front of the sign
Thanks for the detailed critique.
I think you are absolutely right about the bright blades by the bird's breast.
Bird is an Anhinga, like the portrait recently posted here (and on the Nature Forum). Lens is 100-400L IS, a great lens, if there is enough light, and with practice. Handheld.
Minimal noise reduction, default setting in LR applied. Heavily cropped image. Narrow DOF.
BTW, emailed you the RAW.
Scott G
I thought the picture looked a bit flat and needed a bit of definition to bring the bird out of the background. I adjusted the levels and added a moderate curves adjustment. I also added a tough of edge sharpening to help bring the bird out of the background. Hope you don't mind.
Edited by perspective on Apr 01, 2008 at 04:28 AM GMT
Thanks Karl.
I like to see others re-work my images.
I think the first re-work is an improvement. Appreciate your explanation.
Second is too tight for the idling, relaxed feel I wanted.
I'm working with LR (predominantly) and Photoshop CS (a bit). I rarely attempt edge sharpening, although I am aware that a masking control in LR enables this.
Any details to explain this technique?
Scott G
Edge sharpening in CS3 is just one of the filters and it works in 16-bit mode too which is very nice. I like to use it when I think the High Pass filter would be too extreme. The High Pass filter is an excellent edge sharpener that I use often in place of USM when I'm trying to get more edge definition as opposed to overall sharpening, which I do not always need.
Had a chance to fiddle some - I like perspective's sharpening in the first post - played around with a different aspect. Also tried to clone out some of what I'd mentioned above but created a muddled mess so left that as a challenge for others.
I think there is too little meaningful relationship between the bird and the message of the sign. That results in two distinct subjects that compete with each other and yet neither of them works well in this shot. I suspect there just wasn't enough focal length to get a decent shot of the bird and it competes with the background too much. Nor have you captured a decent shot of the river signage or environment. In my opinion the shot probably should not have been taken because none of the elements work.
I'm not intending to sound nasty with that comment. I've heard several experts say that sometimes the trick is to recognise what will not work as well as what will work.
Alan,
I appreciate the honesty and detail fo your comments. My own first self-critical take on this image was, "So?" and I rated it failry low. I circulated it to several friends with critical eyes; including a pro friend of mine with very positive reviews. What should I think? So, here it is on the Critique Forum for further feedback, and clarification of what might work about it and what does not. As I have continued to look at the image, its variations, and the critiques, I've decided:
the bird just aint sharp enough
the relationship to the sign and the low-key setting and background generally seems to work and is pleasant and soothing
there is a conflict about what the image is about: the bird and sign, or all together with the environment (with cropping making it the bird and sign)
I'm not a great judge of other's reactions to my images.
